NVIDIA Quadro M5000M vs AMD Radeon R9 285
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M5000M and AMD Radeon R9 285 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 11 month(s) later
- Around 6% higher core clock speed: 975 MHz vs 918 MHz
- Around 90% lower typical power consumption: 100 Watt vs 190 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 5% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 7020 vs 6680
- Around 31% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 95.613 vs 72.799
- Around 8% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.869 vs 6.369
- Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 9399 vs 6474
- Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3685 vs 3043
- Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3339 vs 2782
- Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 9399 vs 6474
- Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3685 vs 3043
- Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3339 vs 2782
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 18 August 2015 vs 2 September 2014 |
Core clock speed | 975 MHz vs 918 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt vs 190 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 2 GB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 7020 vs 6680 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 95.613 vs 72.799 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.869 vs 6.369 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9399 vs 6474 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3685 vs 3043 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3339 vs 2782 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9399 vs 6474 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3685 vs 3043 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3339 vs 2782 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 285
- Around 10% higher texture fill rate: 102.8 GTexel / s vs 93.6 GTexel / s
- Around 17% higher pipelines: 1792 vs 1,536
- Around 10% better floating-point performance: 3,290 gflops vs 2,995 gflops
- Around 10% higher memory clock speed: 5500 MHz vs 5012 MHz
- Around 25% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 597 vs 478
- Around 10% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1474.632 vs 1341.18
- Around 10% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 91.954 vs 83.683
- Around 7% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 391.399 vs 366.321
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 102.8 GTexel / s vs 93.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1792 vs 1,536 |
Floating-point performance | 3,290 gflops vs 2,995 gflops |
Memory clock speed | 5500 MHz vs 5012 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 597 vs 478 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.632 vs 1341.18 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 91.954 vs 83.683 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 391.399 vs 366.321 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M5000M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 285
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M | AMD Radeon R9 285 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 7020 | 6680 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 478 | 597 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 22846 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 95.613 | 72.799 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1341.18 | 1474.632 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.869 | 6.369 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 83.683 | 91.954 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 366.321 | 391.399 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9399 | 6474 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3685 | 3043 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3339 | 2782 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9399 | 6474 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3685 | 3043 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3339 | 2782 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 2778 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro M5000M | AMD Radeon R9 285 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 3.0 |
Code name | GM204 | Tonga |
Launch date | 18 August 2015 | 2 September 2014 |
Place in performance rating | 463 | 464 |
Type | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1051 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 975 MHz | 918 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 2,995 gflops | 3,290 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 1,536 | 1792 |
Texture fill rate | 93.6 GTexel / s | 102.8 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 190 Watt |
Transistor count | 5,200 million | 5,000 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Display Port | 1.2 | |
VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Laptop size | large | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |
Length | 221 mm | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Shader Model | 5.0 | |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 160 GB / s | 176.0 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 5500 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision Pro | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus | ||
HD3D | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) |